Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Failure analysis of adhesive restorations with SEM and OCT: from marginal gaps to restoration loss

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The objective of this study was to analyse the failure mode of adhesive interfaces by comparing OCT and scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis of class V restoration margins located on enamel and dentin.

Materials and methods

Three groups were tested that differed in the application of a 3-step etch-and-rinse adhesive system (OptiBond FL) prior to cavity filling with restorative composite resin (Clearfil AP-X). After tooth restoration and polishing, the samples were loaded in a fatigue machine, and adhesive interfaces were evaluated with OCT and SEM.

Results

Important and complementary information could be obtained with OCT analysis in respect to how marginal defects can propagate inside the cavity, compromising the restoration’s long-term performance. A self-etching effect was observed with OptiBond FL due to the presence of an acidic primer (GPDM) within its composition. Our results could show that areas of bonding and gaps coexisted within the same restoration.

Conclusions

When marginal imperfections, or non-continuous margins, were detected by SEM, also imperfections beneath the surface could be observed at the tooth-restoration interface with OCT. Restoration loss occurred above the borderline of 50 % of marginal gaps on enamel and dentin.

Clinical relevance

Marginal discrepancies of adhesive restorations can propagate inside the cavity and lead to restoration loss.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aschenbrenner CM, Lang R, Handel G, Behr M (2012) Analysis of marginal adaptation and sealing to enamel and dentin of four self-adhesive resin cements. Clin Oral Investig 16:191–200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Behr M, Hansmann M, Rosentritt M, Handel G (2009) Marginal adaptation of three self-adhesive resin cements vs a well-tried adhesive luting agent. Clin Oral Investig 13:459–464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Krejci I, Lutz F (1990) In-vitro results of the evaluation of dental restoration systems. Correlation with in-vivo results. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 100:1445–1449

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mayoral JR, Gregor L, Campos EA, Roig M, Krejci I (2011) Marginal seal stability of one bottle adhesives in class V vs class I cavities. Clin Oral Investig 15:257–264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rechenberg DK, Höhring TN, Attin T (2010) Influence of different curing approaches on marginal adaptation of ceramic inlays. J Adhes Dent 12:189–196

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Roggendorf MJ, Krämer N, Appelt A, Naumann M, Frankenberger R (2011) Marginal quality of flowable 4-mm base vs. conventionally layered resin composite. J Dent 39:643–647

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Van Dijken JW, Pallesen U (2011) Clinical performance of a hybrid resin composite with and without an intermediate layer of flowable resin composite: a 7-year evaluation. Dent Mater 27:150–156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bracket MG, Dib A, Franco G, Estrada BE, Brackett WW (2010) Two-year clinical performance of Clearfil SE and Clearfil S3 in restoration of unbraded non-carious class V lesions. Oper Dent 35:273–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Heintze SD, Forjanic M, Roulet JF (2007) Automated margin analysis of contemporary adhesive systems in vitro: evaluation of discriminatory variables. J Adhes Dent 9:359–369

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Lohbauer U, Nikolaenko SA, Reich SM (2007) Marginal integrity: is the clinical performance of bonded restorations predictable in vitro? J Adhes Dent 9:107–116

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Burke FJ, Cheung SW, Mjör IA, Wilson NH (1999) Restoration longevity and analysis of reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations provided by vocational dental practitioners and their trainers in the United Kingdom. Quintessence Int 30:234–242

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sarrett DC (2005) Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composite restorations. Dent Mater 21:9–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kern M, Strub JR, Lü XY (1999) Wear of composite resin veneering materials in a dual-axis chewing simulator. J Oral Rehabil 26:372–378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mörmann W, Brandestini M, Ferru A, Lutz F, Krejci I (1985) Marginal adaptation of adhesive porcelain inlays in vitro. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 95:1118–1129

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Puschmann D, Wolfart S, Ludwig K, Kern M (2009) Load-bearing capacity of all-ceramic posterior inlay-retained fixed dental prostheses. Eur J Oral Sci 117:312–318

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sakaguchi RL, Douglas WH, DeLong R, Pintado MR (1986) The wear of a posterior composite in an artificial mouth: a clinical correlation. Dent Mater 2:235–240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zysk AM, Nguyen FT, Oldenburg AL, Marks DL, Boppart SA (2007) Optical coherence tomography: a review of clinical development from bench to bedside. J Biomed Opt 12:051403

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Azevedo CS, Trung LC, Simionato MR, Freitas AZ, Matos AB (2011) Evaluation of caries-affected dentin with optical coherence tomography. Braz Oral Res 25:407–413

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Braz AK, Aguiar CM, Gomes AS (2011) Evaluation of the integrity of dental sealants by optical coherence tomography. Dent Mater 27:e60–e64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ishibashi K, Ozawa N, Tagami J, Sumi Y (2011) Swept-source optical coherence tomography as a new tool to evaluate defects of resin-based composite restorations. J Dent 39:543–548

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Makishi P, Shimada Y, Sadr A, Tagami J, Sumi Y (2011) Non-destructive 3D imaging of composite restorations using optical coherence tomography: marginal adaptation of self-etch adhesives. J Dent 39:316–325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Senawongse P, Pongprueksa P, Harnirattisai C, Sumi Y, Otsuki M, Shimada Y, Tagami J (2011) Non-destructive assessment of cavity wall adaptation of class V composite restoration using swept-source optical coherence tomography. Dent Mater J 30:517–522

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Krejci I, Kuster M, Lutz F (1993) Influence of dentinal fluid and stress on marginal adaptation of resin composites. J Dent Res 72:490–495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Roulet JF, Hirt T, Lutz F (1984) Surface roughness and marginal behavior of experimental and commercial composites: an in vitro study. J Oral Rehabil 11:499–509

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cirrus HD-OCT User Manual, Zeiss, Germany

  26. Spencer P, Ye Q, Park J, Topp EM, Misra A, Marangos O, Wang Y, Bohaty BS, Singh V, Sene F, Eslick J, Camarda K, Katz JL (2010) Adhesive/dentin interface: the weak link in the composite restoration. Ann Biomed Eng 38:1989–2003. doi:10.1007/s10439-010-9969-6

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Garcia-Godoy F, Krämer N, Feilzer AJ, Frankenberger R (2010) Long-term degradation of enamel and dentin bonds: 6-year results in vitro vs. in vivo. Dent Mater 26:1113–1118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Drexler W (2004) Ultrahigh-resolution optical coherence tomography. J Biomed Opt 9:47–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Erickson RL, Barkmeier WW, Latta MA (2009) The role of etching in bonding to enamel: a comparison of self-etching and etch-and-rinse adhesive systems. Dent Mater 25:1459–1467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bahillo J, Roig M, Bortolotto T, Krejci I. Self-etching aspects of a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive. Clin Oral Invest DOI 10.1007/s00784-012-0878-y

  31. Shono Y, Ogawa T, Terashita M, Carvalho RM, Pashley EL, Pashley DH (1999) Regional measurement of resin-dentin bonding as an array. J Dent Res 78:699–705

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, De Munck J, Peumans M, Yoshida Y, Poitevin A, Coutinho E, Suzuki K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B (2007) Systematic review of the chemical composition of contemporary dental adhesives. Biomaterials 28:3757–3785

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict on interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Cariology and Endodontics, University Clinic of Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Rue Barthelemy Menn 19, CH-1205, Geneva, Switzerland

    Tissiana Bortolotto & Ivo Krejci

  2. Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontics, International University of Cataluña, Sant Cugat del Valles, 08195, Barcelona, Spain

    Jose Bahillo

  3. Department of Ophtalmology, University Hospitals of Geneva, Rue Alcide-Jentzer 22, CH-1211, Geneva 14, Switzerland

    Olivier Richoz & Farhad Hafezi

Authors
  1. Tissiana Bortolotto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jose Bahillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Olivier Richoz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Farhad Hafezi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ivo Krejci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tissiana Bortolotto.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bortolotto, T., Bahillo, J., Richoz, O. et al. Failure analysis of adhesive restorations with SEM and OCT: from marginal gaps to restoration loss. Clin Oral Invest 19, 1881–1890 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1402-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1402-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation